PANAMA  CANAL  TOLLS 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON.  THOMAS  P.  GORE 

OF  OKLAHOMA 

> 

IN  THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

- 


TUESDAY,  JUNE  9,  1914 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1014 


48513—13545 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  THOMAS  P.  GORE. 


The  Senate  had  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  14385)  to  amend 
section  5  of  an  act  to  provide  for  the  opening,  maintenance,  protection, 
and  operation  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  sanitation  of  the  Canal 
Zone,  approved  August  24,  1912. 

Mr.  GORE.  Mr.  President,  the  issue  involved  in  this  con¬ 
troversy  is  clear  cut  and  unmistakable.  It  is  not  so  obscure  as 
seems  to  be  the  language  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  out  of 
which  it  has  arisen.  It  is  simply  this ;  Shall  we  repeal  the  act 
exempting  our  coastwise  vessels  from  the  payment  of  canal 
tolls?  This  issue,  however,  involves  five  distinct,  yet  related, 
questions :  First,  Is  the  remission  of  tolls  equivalent  to  the 
granting  of  a  subsidy?  Second,  Is  the  granting  of  a  subsidy  just 
as  a  matter  of  principle  and  wise  as  a  matter  of  policy?  Third, 
Is  the  Democracy  bidden  and  bound  by  its  platform  to  support 
such  a  subsidy?  Fourth,  Is  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
forbidden  by  treaty  obligation  to  grant  such  a  subsidy  or  dis¬ 
crimination?  And  fifth,  Which  is  paramount — a  platform  prom¬ 
ise  or  a  treaty  obligation? 

Mr.  President,  that  the  remission  of  tolls  is  equivalent  to  a 
subsidy  has  not,  indeed,  been  controverted.  To  ask  that  ques¬ 
tion  is  to  answer  it.  No  one  would  deny  that,  if  the  Govern¬ 
ment  should  first  collect  tolls  and  then  return  .them  to  the  ship¬ 
owners,  that  would  constitute  a  subsidy.  The  character  of  the 
transaction  is  not  changed  by  the  circumstance  that  the  ship¬ 
owners  are  allowed  to  retain  the  tolls  in  the  first  instance.  The 
effect  upon  the  General  Treasury  is  the  same.  The  effect 
upon  the  private  treasury  of  the  shipping  concerns  is  the  same. 
In  both  instances  the  shipowners  receive  and  enjoy  the  money, 
and  the  people  are  taxed  to  supply  the  deficiency  thus  occa¬ 
sioned.  That,  sir,  involves  every  element  of  subsidy. 

We  are  not,  however,  left  to  mere  speculation  or  to  abstract 
reasoning  upon  this  point.  The  whole  matter  is  concluded  by 
the  very  highest  authority.  Former  President  Taft,  in  a  speech 
delivered  in  January  last,  used  this  conclusive  language: 

The  idea  of  Congress  in  passing  the  bill  and  my  idea  in  signing  it 
was  that  we  were  thus  granting  a  subsidy  to  our  coastwise  vessels. 

No  one  will  deny  that,  for  once  at  least,  former  President 
Taft  did  not  err.  But,  sir,  I  cite  even  a  higher  authority,  an 
authority  more  commanding  and  more  convincing.  I  refer  to 
the  senior  Senator  from  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  [Mr. 
Gallinger].  That  Senator  has  been  the  avowed  apostle,  he  has 
been  the  acknowledged  champion,  of  ship  subsidy  these  many 
years.  He  has  advocated  such  a  policy  certainly  in  season  and, 
as  some  think,  out  of  season.  He  was  the  chairman,  I  believe, 
of  the  Merchant  Marine  Commission ;  he  prepared  and  sub¬ 
mitted  an  elaborate  report  recommending  that  the  Government 
2  48513—13545 


3 


of  the  United  States  subsidize  its  vessels  engaged  in  foreign 
commerce.  I  do  not  recall  that  he  recommended  a  subsidy  to 
our  coastwise  vessels. 

During  this  debate  my  colleague  [Mr.  Owen]  asked  the  Sena¬ 
tor  from  New  Hampshire  if  the  remission  of  tolls  was  not 
equivalent  to  the  granting  of  a  subsidy,  and  that  Senator,  with 
his  accustomed  candor,  answered,  “  It  is  exactly  the  same  thing.” 
He  did  not  say  that  it  was  the  same  in  effect ;  he  did  not  say  it 
was  analogous  to  a  subsidy;  but  he  said,  with  perfect  truth, 
“  It  is  exactly  the  same  thing.”  Mr.  President,  it  is  the  same 
thing.  Both  are  gratuities  out  of  the  Public  Treasury  in  behalf 
of  private  enterprise. 

I  share  the  regrets  expressed  by  the  Senator  from  New  York 
and  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  as  to  the  disappearance 
of  the  American  flag  from  the  seven  seas.  That  flag  never  will 
be  restored  to  its  former  glorious  position  until  our  antiquated 
navigation  laws  are  repealed. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  true  that  other  nations  subsidize  their 
vessels  engaged  in  foreign  commerce.  It  is  true  that  other 
nations  tax  their  people  to  pay  our  freight.  Against  that  policy 
I  enter  no  protest;  but  I  am  not  willing  to  tax  the  American 
people  and  subsidize  our  seagoing  vessels  in  order  to  pay  or  to 
reduce  the  freight  of  the  foreigner. 

I  am  not  aware  that  any  nation  grants  a  subsidy  to  the 
vessels  engaged  exclusively  in  its  coastwise  commerce.  As  far 
as  I  know,  this  is  a  new  subsidy  under  the  sun. 

I  do.  not  intend,  however,  to  embark  upon  a  general  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  subject  of  ship  subsidies.  That  grain  and  that  chaff 
have  been  winnowed  often  in  the  Senate.  Both  the  subject  and 
the  Senate  have  been  exhausted  time  and  time  again  “  with 
vain  repetition.”  I  come  immediately  to  the  question  before  us : 
Shall  we  grant  this  subsidy  to  our  coastwise  vessels  passing 
through  the  Panama  Canal? 

It  is  estimated  that  the  cost  of  maintenance,  operation,  and 
interest  charges  in  connection  with  the  Panama  Canal  will 
aggregate  some  fifteen  and  a  quarter  million  dollars  yearly.  It 
is  also  estimated  that  the  tolls  paid  by  our  coastwise  commerce 
would  amount  to  $1,200,000.  Now,  sir,  the  question  is,  Shall 
the  people  pay  this  $1,200,000,  or  shall  the  shipowners  who  use 
the  canal  pay  this  $1,200,000? 

Mr.  President,  if  the  Senator  from  New  York  is  correct  in  the 
assertion  that  the  tolls  would  aggregate  $200,000  instead  of 
$1,200,000  yearly,  then,  sir,  the  more  is  the  shame  that  we 
should  barter  our  principles  and  surrender  our  convictions  for 
such  a  miserable  mess  of  pottage  as  that. 

Without  reference  to  the  amount,  whether  it  be  $1,200,000 
or  $200,000,  this  is  the  question :  Shall  we  exempt  the  people 
and  tax  the  ships  or  shall  we  exempt  the  ships  and  tax  the 
people  to  maintain  this  canal? 

That,  sir,  is  the  question.  For  my  part,  I  cast  my  choice 
with  the  people.  I  would  not  consent  to  remit  these  tolls  if  I 
knew  that  the  benefits  of  such  a  remission  would  be  shared 
equally  by  the  producers  and  the  consumers  using  the  canal. 
I  would  not  consent  to  the  remission  of  these  tolls  if  I  knew 
that  the  benefits  would  be  transferred  to  the  producer  in  the 
form  of  higher  prices  upon  what  he  sells,  or  transferred  to  the 
48513—13545 


4 


consumer  in  the  form  of  lower  prices  upon  what  he  buys.  Why 
tax  the  American  people  in  order  to  lavish  this  favor  upon  any 
class  of  consumers  or  any  class  of  producers  merely  because 
their  goods  chance  to  pass  through  this  canal? 

Mr.  WALSH.  Mr.  President - ■ 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Okla¬ 
homa  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Montana? 

Mr.  GORE.  I  yield. 

Mr.  WALSH.  I  am  constrained  to  inquire  of  the  Senator 
from  Oklahoma  what  policy  he  would  advocate  with  reference 
to  the  Soo  Canal  or  the  Erie  Canal? 

Mr.  GORE.  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  intend  to  detour  at  this 
time  through  either  one  of  those  canals.  I  am  addressing  my¬ 
self  now  to  this  particular  subsidy,  which,  unfortunately,  has 
the  support  of  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Montana,  for 
whom  I  entertain  the  highest  admiration. 

I  do  not  believe  the  benefits  of  this  exemption  would  be  shared 
in  any  measure  either  by  the  producers  or  by  the  consumers  of 
this  country.  Those  benefits  would  be  absorbed  by  our  coast¬ 
wise  shipping  monopoly,  which  already  has  been  loaded  down 
with  favors  at  the  hands  of  the  National  Government.  Water 
transportation  is  so  cheap  in  its  nature  that  the  coastwise  ves¬ 
sels  could  underbid  the  transcontinental  railroads  for  the  com¬ 
petitive  traffic. 

It  is  true,  as  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  asserted,  that 
our  coastwise  vessels  to-day  enjoy  exclusive  privileges.  They 
constitute  an  absolute,  a  universal,  an  ironclad,  and  an  air¬ 
tight  monopoly.  Many  people  do  not  know  how  absolute  this 
monopoly  is.  Many  American  citizens  do  not  know  that  no  for¬ 
eign  vessel  can  engage  in  our  coastwise  commerce.  Many  do 
not  know  that  the  proudest  English  ship  that  sails  the  sea  can 
not  receive  a  bale  of  cotton  at  Galveston  and  deliver  that  bale  of 
cotton  at  New  York.  That  is  reserved  for  our  favorite  coast¬ 
wise  shipping.  Many  people  do  not  know  that  no  ship  flying 
the  German  flag  can  take  on  a  bolt  of  calico  at  Boston  and 
“  deliver  the  goods  ”  at  New  Orleans.  That,  sir,  is  reserved  to 
the  coastwise  monopoly,  a  legalized  monopoly,  a  statutory  trust, 
and  the  violation  of  its  privileges  is  a  crime  under  the  laws  of 
the  land. 

Mr.  REED.  Mr.  President - 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Okla¬ 
homa  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Missouri? 

Mr.  GORE.  I  yield. 

Mr.  REED.  The  Senator  is  on  a  theme  that  touches  me  very 
closeiy,  because  I  have  introduced  an  amendment  opening  the 
coastwise  business  of  the  United  States  to  the  ships  of  all 
nations.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  present  coastwise  busi¬ 
ness  is  so  thoroughly  monopolized,  as  the  Senator  describes,  I 
wish  to  ask  him  if  he  will  not  give  his  support  in  helping  to 
break  that  monopoly? 

Mr.  GORE.  Mr.  President,  I  never  differ  from  the  Senator 
from  Missouri  when  the  Senator  is  right,  and  the  Senator  is 
nearly  always  right. 

Mr.  GALLINGER.  Mr.  President - 

Mr.  GORE.  When  I  differ  from  him  I  suspect  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  my  own  views  and  my  own  position.  In  this  instance  I 
do  not  differ.  I  think  that  every  ship  that  sails  the  seas  ought 
48513—13545 


5 


to  be  allowed  to  receive  cargoes  at  New  York  and  discharge  them 
at  San  Francisco.  Then  the  monopoly  will  be  undone  and 
coastwise  freight  rates  will  be  reasonable.  I  would  not  do  so 
overnight.  I  think  the  change  should  be  gradual,  so  as  to 
avoid  needless  dislocation  and  allow  time  for  readjustment. 

Mr.  GALLINGER.  Mr.  President - 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Okla¬ 
homa  yield  to  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire? 

Mr.  GORE.  I  yield. 

Mr.  GALLINGER.  Does  not  the  Senator  think  if  we  put  our 
coastwise  vessels  in  competition  with  foreign  vessels  that  the 
coastwise  industry  would  share  the  same  fate  that  has  come  to 
our  over-seas  shipping? 

Mr.  GORE.  Mr.  President,  that  is  exactly  the  reason  why  I 
suggested  the  limitation  in  answering  the  Senator  from  Mis¬ 
souri. 

Mr.  President,  the  Government  has  not  only  invested  our 
coastwise  ships  with  monopolistic  power,  but  it  has  permitted 
the  abuse  of  that  power. 

Compare  the  freight  rates  between  our  coastwise  vessels  and 
vessels  that  are  obliged  to  meet  the  competition  of  the  world. 

Bagging  from  New  York  to  New  Orleans  is  35  cents  a  hun¬ 
dred,  from  Liverpool  to  New  Orleans  17£  cents  a  hundred. 
The  rate  on  wire  and  on  cotton  ties  from  New  York  to  New 
Orleans  is  35  cents;  from  Liverpool  to  New  Orleans  13£  cent!T 
a  hundred.  The  distance  from  Liverpool  to  New  Orleans  is 
three  times  as  great  as  from  New  York  to  New  Orleans,  yet 
the  coastwise  rate  is  three  times  as  much  as  the  foreign  rate. 

Sir,  that  is  not  all.  Take  the  rate  on  plows.  From  New 
York  to  Wilmington,  a  distance  of  550  miles,  the  rate  is  15 
cents  a  hundred  pounds ;  to  New  Orleans,  35  cents  a  hundred ; 
to  Argentine  ports,  6,000  miles  away,  49£  cents  a  hundred;  to 
Cape  Town,  in  South  Africa,  42  cents  a  hundred;  and  to 
Shanghai,  12,500  miles  away,  58  cents  a  hundred. 

Compare  the  rate  on  dry  goods.  From  New  York  to  Wilming¬ 
ton,  550  miles,  50  cents  a  hundred ;  to  New  Orleans,  1,700  miles, 
70  cents  a  hundred;  to  Shanghai,  12,500  miles  away,  60  cents 
a  hundred.  Shanghai  is  twenty  times  as  far  from  New  York  as 
Wilmington,  yet  the  rate  is  only  10  cents  a  hundred  more,  and 
it  is  10  cents  less  a  hundred  to  Shanghai  than  to  New  Orleans. 

Mr.  President,  of  course  competitive  conditions  affect  these 
rates  in  some  measure,  but  they  do  not  justify  and  they  do  not 
account  for  this  enormous  disparity. 

Now,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  asked  to  confer 
an  additional  subsidy  on  this  favored  monopoly  at  the  expense 
of  the  overburdened  taxpayers. 

Mr.  President,  the  opponents  of  the  pending  measure  reached 
the  very  summit  of  their  indigination,  patriotism,  and  defiance 
when  they  hurled  this  gauge  at  our  feet;  Have  we  not  ex¬ 
pended  $400,000,000,  they  say,  to  construct  this  canal,  and  can 
we  not  then  exempt  our  own  vessels  from  the  payment  of  tolls? 

As  a  matter  of  course,  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
will  not  pay  tolls  upon  the  vessels  belonging  to  the  Government. 
But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  true  that  we  have  taxed  the  American 
people  $400,000,000  to  construct  this  canal.  Shall  we  now  tax 
the  American  people  millions  of  dollars  every  year  in  order  to 
48513—13545 


6 


maintain  the  canal  for  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  a  legalized 
monopoly?  Is  it  not  enough  to  tax  the  people  $400,000,000  to 
construct  this  great  highway?  Can  not  the  beneficiaries  afford 
to  pay  for  maintenance  and  operation.  Shipowners  and  Sen¬ 
ators  who  complain  that  the  American  people  ought  to  be  taxed 
to  maintain  this  great  highway  after  having  been  taxed 
$400,000,000  to  construct  it  are  a  good  deal  like  the  woman  who 
borrowed  her  neighbor’s  bonnet  and  then  complained  because  it 
did  not  suit  her  complexion. 

It  may  be  true  that  those  in  authority  in  1900  and  1901 
drove  a  bad  bargain  when  they  negotiated  and  ratified  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.  I  do  not  undertake  to  pronounce  judg¬ 
ment  upon  that  point  at  this  time.  The  question  now  is  not 
whether  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  was  wise  or  whether  it  was 
the  best  possible  treaty.  My  only  contention  is  that  it  is  the 
treaty,  and  it  ought  to  be  observed  both  in  letter  and  in  spirit. 
I  doubt  not  that  when  the  canal  becomes  a  going  concern  the 
tolls  will  equal  the  cost  of  maintenance,  operation,  and  interest 
charges.  I  hope  the  receipts  may  ultimately  amortize  the  debt 
and  return  to  the  Treasury  the  $400,000,000  that  can  be  applied 
to  other  useful  and  beneficent  improvements. 

Congress  recently  appropriated  $35,000,000  to  construct  a 
railroad  in  Alaska.  Do  Senators  on  the  other  side  think  that 
this  railway,  constructed  at  public  expense,  should  be  open  to 
all  American  railroad  companies  free  of  tolls?  Is  there  any 
reason  which  would  justify  the  passage  of  a  ship  through  the 
canal  without  charge  that  would  not  justify  the  passage  of  a 
locomotive  and  train  over  this  railroad  without  charge? 

Mr.  President,  is  the  Democratic  Party  bound  by  its  plat¬ 
form  to  grant  this  subsidy  to  our  coastwise  vessels?  It  is  true 
that  the  Baltimore  platform  contained  a  plank  declaring  that 
coastwise  vessels  shall  be  allowed  to  pass  through  the  canal 
without  the  payment  of  tolls.  The  promise  is  explicit.  The 
promise  is  unequivocal.  The  promise  is  not  shrouded  with 
mist  and  fog.  The  promise  is  as  luminous  as  a  desert  sun  at 
noontide.  Indeed,  sir,  the  promise  is  as  clear  and  as  unmistak¬ 
able  as  the  language  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

Ml*.  President,  we  did  make  the  promise.  Shall  we  now  break 
the  promise?  That  is  the  point.  I  have  been  among  those  who 
have  attached  the  greatest  weight,  and  I  may  say  the  greatest 
sanctity,  to  platform  pledges.  I  regard  a  platform  as  a  cove¬ 
nant  between  the  party  making  it  and  the  people  approving  it. 
Yet  I  have  never  gone  so  far  as  some.  I  have  never  hedged 
a  convention  about  with  any  sort  of  divinity.  The  doctrine 
that  a  convention  can  do  no  wrong  is  as  dangerous  as  is  the 
doctrine  that  a  king  can  do  no  wrong.  This  instance  demon¬ 
strates  the  danger  of  such  a  dogma. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  impelled  by  reasons  I  believe  to  be  just 
and  justifiable  not  to  keep  the  pledge.  I  assume  the  respon¬ 
sibility;  I  accept  the  consequences;  yet  those  who  are  disposed 
to  do  so  can  plead  extenuating  circumstances  in  their  behalf. 
The  platform  contained  a  pledge  that  coastwise  vessels  should 
be  allowed  to  make  the  transit  through  the  canal  untaxed. 
Democratic  Senators  who  vote  against  repeal  undoubtedly  have 
in  that  plank  a  plea  that  will  be  accepted  in  the  court  of  public 
opinion.  But,  Mr.  President,  Democrats  who  vote  for  repeal, 
48513—13545 


7 


Democrats  who  vote  against  the  continuance  of  this  subsidy, 
will  find  another  plank  in  this  platform  which  sustains  and 
which  justifies  their  course  of  conduct.  The  Democratic  plat¬ 
form  contains  a  clear-cut  and  explicit  declaration  against  the 
granting  of  ship  subsidies.  That  is  the  ancient,  the  accepted, 
the  immemorial  faith  of  democracy.  The  Democratic  platform 
of  1904  fulminated  a  denunciation  against  ship  subsidies;  the 
Democratic  platform  of  1900  announced  the  faith  of  the  fathers, 
a  declaration  against  the  granting  of  bounties  and  subsidies  to 
American  shipping.  That,  sir,  is  the  traditional  doctrine  of  the 
Democratic  Party,  and  upon  that  doctrine  stand  those  Senators 
who  cast  their  vote  for  the  pending  bill. 

Mr.  President,  there  have  always  been  two  schools  of  thought 
in  the  United  States  touching  protective  duties,  touching  the 
granting  of  favors,  bounties,  subsidies,  and  privileges.  The 
Republican  Party  has  uniformly  maintained  that  principle. 
The  Democratic  Party  has  uniformly  stood  out  in  favor  of  the 
principle  of  justice  and  equality  and  against  the  policy  of  privi¬ 
leges  and  of  subsidies.  That  the  heart  of  Democracy  is  still 
true  to  the  faith  is  abundantly  proven  to-day.  The  vote  in  the 
other  House  in  favor  of  repeal,  the  vote  in  the  other  House 
against  this  subsidy,  was  at  the  ratio  of  4  to  1  amongst  the 
Democrats.  The  heart  of  Democracy  is  still  true  to  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  justice.  The  vote  in  this  Chamber,  I  doubt  not,  amongst 
the  Democrats,  will  be  in  the  ratio  of  4  to  1.  The  heart  of 
Democracy  still  beats  in  sympathy  with  the  unprivileged  masses 
in  an  unequal  contest  with  the  privileged  classes.  This  fact  is 
proven  by  the  circumstance  that  713  delegates  to  the  Baltimore 
convention  have  signified  their  support  of  the  pending  bill,  and 
only  126  of  those  delegates  have  signified  their  opposition  to  the 
pending  bill.  This  ratio  is  5  to  1.  Counting  all  who  were  silent 
as  adverse,  the  vote  of  the  delegates  would  be  in  the  ratio  of 
2  to  1  in  behalf  of  the  traditional  principles  of  the  Democratic 
faith.  I  base  these  statements  on  a  poll  of  the  delegates  which 
I  have  recently  made.  This,  I  say,  proves  their  continued  devo¬ 
tion  to  these  accepted  and  recognized  standards  of  justice  and 
equality. 

Democrats  who  desire  to  do  so  can  plead  the  doctrine  of  ultra 
vires  that  the  convention  exceeded  its  powers.  Could  a  Repub¬ 
lican  convention  by  declaring  in  favor  of  free  trade  and  tariff 
for  revenue  only  bind  its  membership  to  that  principle?  Would 
such  a  declaration  bind  the  conscience  and  the  conduct  of  life¬ 
long  Republicans  who  were  devoted  to  the  policy  of  protection? 
Sir,  I  mean  no  disrespect,  but  could  a  conference  of  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Church,  could  a  convention  of  the  Baptist  or  Christian 
Church,  could  a  council  of  the  Catholic  Church  renounce  and 
adjure  the  Apostles’  Creed  and  commit  its  membership  to  the 
philosophy  of  negation?  Would  such  an  attempt  be  binding 
either  upon  the  conscience  or  the  conduct  of  a  Christian  con¬ 
gregation?  Could  a  Democratic  convention  by  declaring  in  favor 
of  a  protective  tariff  bind  its  membership  to  that  Republican 
fallacy?  Can  you  thus  convert  the  apostles  of  equal  justice  into 
the  champions  of  special  favors? 

Mr.  President,  to  the  Democracy  the  upas  tree  of  privilege  is 
the  tree  of  death,  not  the  tree  of  life.  Its  deadly  fruit  is  the 
forbidden  fruit.  I  must  say  that  I  marveled  when  I  discovered 
that  this  cuckoo  egg  of  subsidy  was  in  the  Democratic  nest  of 
48513—13545 


8 


equality.  I  must  beware  when  I  see  this  Republican  horse 
freighted  with  destruction  introduced  into  the  citadel  of  De¬ 
mocracy. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  still  another  reason  justifying  Demo¬ 
cratic  Senators  in  withholding  their  support  from  this  plank  of 
the  Baltimore  platform.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  platform 
pledge,  of  its  solemnity,  and  of  its  binding  effect  upon  individual 
Democrats,  in  so  far  as  the  British  Government  is  concerned,  it 
was  an  ex-parte  proceeding. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  bidden,  it  is  bound 
by  solemn  treaty  obligations,  to  equal  treatment  and  to  equal 
tolls  as  among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  respect  to  the 
Panama  Canal.  Mr.  President,  let  it  be  remembered  here  that 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  entered  into  upon  the  initiative 
of  the  United  States,  and  not  upon  that  of  Great  Britain.  In 
1850  Great  Britain  maintained  a  protectorate  over  the  strip  of 
territory  including  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan  River  in  Nicara¬ 
gua.  That  point  was  regarded  as  indispensable  to  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  an  interoceanic  canal.  The  seizure  of  Tiger  Island  that 
year  precipitated  a  crisis  in  the  international  relations  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Government  of  Great  Britain.  Out  of 
that  crisis  came  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.  It  composed  all 
the  differences  then  existing  between  the  two  Governments. 

It  can  not  be  denied  that  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  embodies  the  principle  of  neutrality  and  the  principle  of 
equality.  It  provides  that  the  canal  shall  be  open  to  the  citizens 
and  subjects  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  equal 
terms.  No  one  will  deny  that  if  the  canal  had  been  constructed 
under  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  the  United  States  to  have  discriminated  in  favor  of  its 
coastwise  shipping. 

It  must  also  be  remembered  that  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty 
was  entered  into  not  upon  the  initiative  of  Great  Britain,  but 
upon  the  motion  of  the  United  States.  During  the  course  of 
that  correspondence  Lord  Lansdowne  declared  that  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  had  no  desire  to  secure  a  modification  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty.  The  principle  of  neutralization  embodied  in  the  eighth 
article  of  that  treaty  was  imported  into  and  made  a  part  of  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  what  is  the  controverted  language  in  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  convention?  It  is  this: 

The  canal  shall  he  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of 
war  of  all  nations  observing  these  rules  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so 
that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  such  nation  or  its 
citizens  or  subjects  in  respect  of  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic  or 
otherwise.  Such  conditions  and  charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  and 
equitable. 

Mr.  President,  what  is  the  historic  background  in  accordance 
with  which  that  language  must  be  interpreted?  A  long  and 
illustrious  line  of  Secretaries  of  State,  from  Henry  Clay  to  John 
Hay,  have  given  expression  to  the  traditional  policy  of  this 
Government.  As  far  back  as  1825  Henry  Clay,  then  Secretary 
of  State,  declared  that  the  benefits  of  a  trans-isthmian  canal 
“  ought  not  be  exclusively  appropriated  to  any  one  nation.” 

Secretary  of  State  Clayton,  who  assisted  in  the  negotiation 
of  the  treaty  bearing  his  name,  entertained  the  view  that  the 
canal  should  be  as  open  as  the  high  seas. 

48513 — 13545 


9 


President  Taylor,  Chief  Executive  when  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  was  negotiated,  declared  in  a  message  to  Congress  that 
the  canal  “  ought  to  be  dedicated  to  the  common  use  of  man¬ 
kind.” 

That,  sir,  was  before  the  spirit  of  monopoly  was  so  rampant 
in  this  Republic. 

Mr.  Cleveland  declared  that  the  proposed  canal  had  been  con¬ 
secrated  to  the  common  use  of  mankind. 

John  Play  subscribed  to  the  principle  of  neutralization  and. 
equality. 

Mr.  President,  the  best  review  of  our  traditional  policy  of 
neutrality  and  equality  is  contained  in  the  Republican  campaign 
book  for  the  year  1900.  It  reviews  the  language  of  these  dis¬ 
tinguished  statesmen,  these  distinguished  Secretaries  of  State; 
it  demonstrates  why  the  principle  of  equality  could  not  have 
been  abrogated  in  the  first  Hay-Pa  uncefote  treaty,  then  pend¬ 
ing  before  the  Senate.  It  is  elaborate ;  it  is  comprehensive ;  it 
is  illuminating;  it  characterizes  the  position  of  the  Democratic 
Party  at  that  time  as  born  either  of  ignorance  or  of  willful  dis¬ 
regard  for  our  solemn  contractual  relations.  In  regard  to  the 
principle  of  neutralization  it  uses  this  powerful  language 

This  has  been  the  uniform  and  unchanging  policy  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  from  the  very  beginning.  It  has  never  had  any 
other  thought  or  purpose  than  to  open  this  interoceanic  waterway  to 
the  use  of  all  nations  upon  equal  terms. 

“  To  the  use  of  all  nations  upon  equal  terms.”  The  Demo¬ 
cratic  platform  in  1900  characterized  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty 
then  pending  as  “  a  surrender  of  American  rights  and  interests, 
not  to  be  tolerated  by  the  American  people,”  but  it  did  not 
impinge,  it  did  not  challenge  the  principle  of  neutralization  or 
equality.  The  Democratic  campaign  book  of  1900  used  this 
clear-cut  and  unmistakable  language: 

No  one  can  deny  that  an  interoceanic  canal  should  be  open  to  all  com¬ 
merce  on  equal  terms.  It  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  the  United  States 
to  discuss  it  with  any  other  power  in  any  other  phase.  / 

Nobody  dreamed  at  that  time  that  the  United  States  had  the 
power  to  discriminate  when  the  treaty  said  there  should  be  no 
discrimination. 

But,  Mr.  President,  what  did  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the 
United  States,  what  did  the  representatives  of  the  United  States 
in  this  negotiation  think  that  they  said,  what  did  they  think 
that  they  meant  by  the  use  of  the  language  in  the  Hay-Paunce¬ 
fote  treaty?  Their  testimony  is  uniform  and  unvarying.  Joseph 
Choate  was  at  that  time  ambassador  to  the  Court  of  St.  James. 
He  says  that — 

The  language  of  the  treaty  excludes  the  possibility — 

Excludes  the  possibility,  mark  that — 
of  any  discrimination  in  favor  of  any  American  vessel,  excepting  ships 
of  war  in  time  of  war. 

Mr.  President,  that  is  tolerably  clear;  we  at  least  understand 
what  he  was  driving  at;  we  understand  what  he  thought  he 
was  saying  and  what  he  thought  he  meant.  Mr.  Henry  White 
was  for  a  time  during  the  negotiations  American  charge  'd’af¬ 
faires.  What  does  Mr.  White  say?  He  says  that  it  was  his 
understanding,  and,  as  he  thinks,  the  understanding  of  Lord 
Lansdowne,  Lord  Salisbury,  and  Lord  Pauncefote,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  negotiations,  that  there  was  to  be 
48513—13545 


10 


no  discrimination  in  favor  of  American  vessels,  not  even  coast¬ 
wise  vessels.  Tliat  is  wliat  Mr.  White  thought  he  said  during 
those  negotiations ;  that  is  what  he  thought  he  meant,  before 
Senators  came  to  enlighten  him  as  to  his  real  intents  and  pur¬ 
poses. 

What  did  John  Hay,  then  Secretary  of  State  and  a  fairly  good 
master  of  correct  English,  imagine  that  he  .was  saying  and 
meaning  when  he  gave  consent  to  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty? 
Mr.  Hay  was  one  of  our  most  illustrious  Secretaries  of  State 
and  received  his  baptism  in  politics  as  confidential  secretary  to 
Abraham  Lincoln,  the  greatest  President  between  Jackson  and 
Wilson.  I  shall  quote  Mr.  Hay’s  exact  language  a  little  further 
on.  Let  me  now  analyze  the  mysterious,  the  obscure,  the  mys- 
•  tifying  verbiage  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.  We  begin  with 
the  first  clause  in  the  mooted  article : 

The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of 
war  of  all  nations  observing  these  rules. 

Mr.  President,  from  the.  very  threshold  we  are  plunged  into 
impenetrable  darkness.  “All  nations.”  What  can  that  phrase 
possibly  mean?  “All”  is  an  obscure  word.  It  is  vague,  in¬ 
definite,  uncertain.  It  is  as  indefinite  as  space  itself.  Where 
does  it  end?  If  we  only  know  that  “  all  ”  meant  “  all,”  we 
should  be  freed  from  perplexity,  but  who  will  be  so  bold  as  to 
suggest  in  this  presence  that  “all”  means  “all”? 

There  was  one  so  audacious  as  to  attribute  to  the  word  that 
definition.  That  was  Secretary  John  Hay.  He  undertook  to 
define  it.  He  said,  “  ‘All  ’  means  ‘  all.’  ”  He  said,  “  The  treaty 
was  not  so  long  that  we  could  not  have  said  ‘  all  other  nations  • 
if  that  had  been  the  meaning.”  He  then  adds,  with  presumption, 
“  ‘All  nations  ’  means  ‘  all  nations.’  ”  But  who  would  undertake 
to  balance  the  authority  of  John  Hay,  whose  name  this  treaty 
bears,  with  the  advocates  of  subsidy  and  monopoly  who  have 
now  come  to  judgment?  These  great  linguists  and  diplomatists 
could  have  put  all  doubt  to  death  by  simply  saying  “  all  nations 
and  then  some.” 

But  we  proceed,  amid  the  fog  and  the  obscurity,  to  the  second 
clause : 

The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of 
war  of  all  nations — 

How? 

on  terms  of  entire  equality. 

Here  our  bewilderment  becomes  more  wilde'ring — “  on  terms 
of  entire  equality.”  If  we  only  knew  that  “entire  ”  meant  “  en¬ 
tire,”  our  feet  would  rest  upon  an  unriven  rock.  But,  sir,  who 
will  venture  such  an  interpretation?  “On  terms  of  entire 
equality.”  Senators  say  that  “  entire  ”  does  not  mean  “  entire  ”  ; 
and  who  will  challenge  such  high  authority? 

We  proceed.  Doubts  peep  over  doubts  and  clouds  on  clouds 
arise. 

The  third  clause : 

The  canal  shall  he  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  all  nations  on 
terms  of  entire  equality — 

Why? 

So  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  such  nation,  or 
its  citizens  or  subjects. 

Here  is  confusion  worse  confounded.  Here  we  heap  shade 
upon  shadow.  Cimmerian  darkness,  contrasted  with  this  Del- 
48513—13545 


11 

phian  oracle,  were  as  sunlight  unto  moonlight,  nay,  as  noontide 
unto  midnight. 

So  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination. 

Now,  they  could  have  made  it  stronger  than  that  if  they  had 
seen  fit.  The  question  immediately  springs  into  every  Senator’s 
mind,  “  Does  ‘  no  discrimination  ’  mean  ‘  no  discrimination  ’  ?  ” 
If  it  does,  there  the  controversy  may  rest ;  but  I  am  not  commis¬ 
sioned  to  say  that  “  no  discrimination  ”  means  “  no  discrimina¬ 
tion.” 

Mr.  President,  we  must  let  some  Daniel  come  to  judgment; 
some  one  who  can  interpret  the  dream  of  the  King  without 
having  heard  the  King’s  dream.  Mark  this  bewildering  con¬ 
fusion  :  “All  nations,”  “  entire  equality,”  “  no  discrimination.” 

About,  about  in  reel  and  rout, 

These  doubtful  phrases  thread  the  mazes  of  the  misty  dance. 

From  this  time  forth  let  Talleyrand’s  paradox  be  taken  as  a 
truism,  that  the  object  of  language  is  to  conceal  thought. 

* 

We  close  our  eyes  and  call  it  night ; 

We  grope  and  fall  in  seas  of  light. 

There  are  two  historic  incidents  that  shed  much  light  upon 
this  question  and  illuminate  the  pathway  of  our  duty.  Senator 
Bard,  of  California,  offered  an  amendment  to  the  first  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  which  reserved,  in  express  terms,  the  au¬ 
thority  to  exempt  from  the  payment  of  tolls  our  coastwise 
vessels.  That  amendment  was  rejected  by  an  overwhelming 
majority.  Great  Britain  had  a  right  to  understand  that  action 
on  the  part  of  the  Senate  as  a  reaffirmation  of  our  traditional 
policy  in  favor  of  equality  of  treatment  and  in  favor  of  equality 
of  tolls.  Senators  say,  however,  that  the  Bard  amendment  was 
rejected  because  it  was  unnecessary.  Senators  say  that  the 
Bard  amendment,  reserving  the  express  authority  to  exempt 
from  tolls,  was  rejected  because  the  power  was  involved  and 
implied  in  the  terms  of  the  treaty  itself. 

Sir,  that  was  a  fastidious  parsimony  of  words  which  ought  to 
warn  all  statesmen  of  the,  future  to  be  exact,  even  at  the  peril 
of  being  extravagant. 

Mr.  KERN.  Mr.  President,  does  the  Senator  desire  to  con¬ 
clude  this  evening? 

Mr.  GORE.  Yes.  It  will  not  take  me  very  long. 

Great  Britain  rejected  the  first  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.  The 
prizes  which  it  held  out  were  not  so  alluring  as  to  secure  her 
ratification  nolens  volens.  Can  any  Senator  imagine  that  Great 
Britain  would  have  ratified  the  second  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty 
if  it  had  contained  the  Bard  amendment?  Does  any  Senator 
imagine  that  Great  Britain  would  have  ratified  this  treaty  if 
she  had  suspected  that  the  United  States  intended  to  depart 
from  its  traditional  policy  in  favor  of  equal  treatment  and 
equal  tolls? 

There  is  another  historic  incident  which  shoots  a  ray  of  light 
into  the  blackness.  In  1884  the  United  States  negotiated  a 
treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua.  The  treaty  was  never 
ratified,  yet  it  is  significant.  It  is  known  as  the  Frelinghuysen- 
Zevalla  treaty.  Under  the  terms  of  that  treaty  Nicaragua  con- 
;  ceded  to  the  United  States  the  right  and  authority  to  construct 
a  canal  across  her  territory  and  to  own  the  canal.  It  was  to  be 

48513—13545 


12 


operated  under  a  board  of  management  appointed  by  the  two 
contracting  Governments. 

Mr.  President,  in  article  14  of  this  treaty  I  find  the  following 
salient  and  significant  language,  which  Senators  will  mark : 

The  tolls  hereinbefore  provided  shall  be  equal  as  to  vessels  of  the 
parties  hereto  and  of  all  nations,  except  that  vessels  entirely  owned 
and  commanded  by  citizens  of  either  one  of  the  parties  to  this  conven¬ 
tion  and  engaged  in  its  coasting  trade  may  be  favored. 

This  secured  equality  of  tolls  in  all  international  commerce 
between  the  United  States,  Nicaragua,  and  all  other  nations, 
but  as  to  our  coastwise  trade  we  expressly  reserved  the  power 
to  exempt  those  vessels  from  the  payment  of  tolls.  We  had  a 
treaty  subsisting  many  years  with  Great  Britain  assuring  neu¬ 
trality  and  equality.  When  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  was 
negotiated  Great  Britain  had  before  her  eyes  this  rejected  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Nicaragua.  Great  Britain  had 
a  right  to  believe  that  if  the  United  States  intended  to  renounce 
the  principle  of  equal  treatment  the  United  States  would  have 
the  candor  and  would  have  the  courage  to  say  so,  as  they  did 
say  in  the  Frelinghuysen-Zevalla  treaty. 

As  if  to  anticipate  this  very  discussion,  as  if  they  caught 
glimpses  of  coming  events,  the  British  negotiators  suggested  this 
article  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty : 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the  inter¬ 
national  relations  of  the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  the  before- 
mentioned  canal  shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralization  or 
the  obligation  of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

Our  subsequent  acquisition  of  the  Panama  Canal  Zone  does 
not  relieve  us  from  our  solemn  covenant  to  maintain  entire 
equality  of  treatment  to  all  nations  observing  the  stipulated 
rules. 

Mr.  President,  Great  Britain,  especially  in  the  esteem  of  some 
Senators  here,  enjoys  the  reputation  of  being  a  pretty  shrewd 
bargainer.  What  did  Great  Britain  get  under  the  Hay-Paunce¬ 
fote  treaty?  What  did  she  get  in  return  for  the  concessions 
made  by  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty?  All  this 
labored  language,  all  this  iteration  and  reiteration  of  assurances 
as  to  equality  and  discrimintion  comes  to  this,  that  Great 
Britain  was  simply  insisting  that  the  treaty  should  be  so  written 
that  she  never  could  receive  at  the  hands  of  the  United  States 
any  favor,  any  advantage,  any  consideration,  any  return  for 
the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

It  would  have  been  infinitely  better  for  Great  Britain  had  she 
merely  insisted  upon  the  insertion  of  the  “  favored-nation  ” 
clause,  a  proviso  that  the  vessels  of  Great  Britain  should  be  as 
favorably  treated  as  the  vessels  of  the  most-favored  nation. 
That  would  have  given  her  all  the  equality,  all  the  guaranties 
against  discrimination,  which  she  enjoys  under  the  Hay-Paunce¬ 
fote  treaty,  and  it  would  not  have  foreclosed  the  possibility  of 
her  receiving  some  favor  in  the  future  for  her  generosity  in  the 
abrogation  of  thdt  convention.  It  would  have  left  at  least  the 
opportunity  for  the  United  States  to  bear  witness  to  their  ap¬ 
preciation  of  Great  Britain’s  magnanimous  action  in  revoking 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  the  abandonment  of  her  demand  for 
equal  treatment. 

Mr.  President,  if  this  be  true,  Great  Britain  gave  one  other 
indication  either  of  treachery  or  of  stupidity  that  can  hardly 
48513—13545 


be  imputed  to  that  ancient  and  enlightened  Government. 
Great  Britain  agreed  to  renounce  the  guaranties  of  equality  and 
subjected  her  own  commerce  to  serious  discrimination,  and 
abandoned  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to 
an  impossible  competition  against  the  coastwise  trade  of  the 
United  States. 

Let  me  cite  one  or  two  instances.  Let  us  say  that  a  vessel 
receives  at  Liverpool  a  cargo  of  dry  goods  and  structural  steel, 
bound  for  some  port  in  Japan.  It  passes  through  the  Panama 
Canal  and  pays,  let  us  say,  *$15,000  toll.  It  is  desired  in  New 
York  to  ship  dry  goods  and  structural  steel  to  the  same  port 
in  Japan  in  competition  with  the  English  goods.  A  vessel  en¬ 
gaged  in  our  coastwise  trade  receives  the  cargo  at  New  York, 
passes  through  the  canal  toll  free,  touches  at  San  Diego,  Cal., 
and  there  the  cargo  is  transshipped  to  another  vessel,  owned 
perhaps  by  the  same  concern,  and  is  delivered  at  its  destined 
port  in  Japan  without  having  paid  tribute  for  passing  through 
the  canal.  That  would  be  coastwise  trade  from  New  York  to 
San  Diego ;  and  can  we  provide  guaranties  that  such  cargoes 
shall  never  be  shipped  beyond  the  seas? 

Take  another  instance.  A  Canadian  ship  clears  at  Halifax, 
bound  for  San  Francisco.  It  pays,  let  us  say,  $10,000  toll  in 
transit  through  the  canal.  Another  ship,  bound  to  the  same 
point,  laden  with  a  similar  cargo,  clears  at  New  York,  bound 
for  San  Francisco.  It  passes  through  the  canal  tax  free.  Is 
\  not  that  intolerable  competition  ? 

Reverse  the  voyage.  A  Canadian  ship  takes  on  a  cargo  of 
grain  and  of  lumber  at  Vancouver,  makes  a  passage  through 
the  canal,  paying  $10,000  in  tolls,  and  delivers  its  cargo  at 
New  York.  An  American  vessel  receives  grain  and  lumber  at 
Port  Townsend  or  Seattle,  Wash.,  passes  through  the  canal 
without  the  payment  of  tolls,  and  delivers  its  cargo  in  New 
York  in  competition  with  the  Canadian  vessel. 

Mr.  President,  what  will  be  the  first  result  of  the  situation 
which  I  have  just  described  with  respect  to  Vancouver  and 
Seattle?  The  first  result  will  be  that  wheat  and  lumber  pro¬ 
duced  in  British  Columbia  would  be  diverted  from  Vancouver 
and  would  be  shipped  by  rail  to  Port  Townsend  or  Seattle  and. 
then  shipped  by  American  coastwise  vessels  to  our  Atlantic  sea¬ 
board  cities.  The  second  result  would  be  that  the  Dominion 
of  Canada  would  impose  an  export  duty  or  a  prohibition  on  the 
shipment  of  goods  from  Canada  into  the  United  States.  Carlisle’s 
observation  that  “  Injustice  begets  injustice,”  is  as  true  as 
truth. 

We  must  not  subject  ourselves  to  the  criticism  or  the  sus¬ 
picion  that  our  principles  change  with  our  interest  or  vary  with 
our  situation.  This  is  not  the  first  controversy  we  have  ever 
had  concerning  the  definition  of  the  phrase  “  equal  treatment,” 
as  contained  in  an  international  treaty.  The  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  entered  into  a  treaty  in  1871  known  as  the  treaty 
of  Washington.  Under  the  27th  article  of  that  convention  equal 
treatment  was  guaranteed  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  to  the  inhabitants  of  Canada  in  regard  to  the  canals  in  their 
respective  territories  connecting  the  waters  of  the  Great  Lakes. 
Canada  passed  a  law  imposing  a  toll  of  20  cents  per  ton  on  all 
vessels  passing  through  the  Welland  Canal.  She  provided,  how- 
48513—13545 


14 


ever,  that  vessels  carrying  cargoes  as  far  east  or  farther  east 
than  Montreal  should  be  entitled  to  a  rebate  of  18  cents  per 
ton.  President  Cleveland  protested  that  this  refund  or  sub¬ 
sidy  violated  the  guaranty  of  equal  treatment  to  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States.  President  Harrison  reiterated  this  protest. 
Congress  enacted  a  law  authorizing  the  imposition  of  retaliatory 
tolls.  Canada  receded  from  her  position.  Her  canals  are  free 
and  open  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  upon  equal  terms  with 
her  own  inhabitants.  Does  the  reciprocal  pledge  of  equal  treat¬ 
ment  bind  the  other  nation  alone,  and  is  it  to  our  Government 
fragile  as  a  rope  of  sand?  It  is  no  special  credit,  either  to  an 
individual  or  to  a  nation,  to  observe  a  contract  when  it  is  highly 
advantageous  to  do  so.  That  imposes  no  strain  either  upon  the 
private  or  the  public  conscience.  The  easiest  morals  could 
assume  that  virtue.  Good  faith  at  5  per  cent  were  a  delightful 
duty.  It  is  they  who  keep  the  faith  when  the  advantage  is 
doubtful  or  adverse  that  are  entitled  to  the  confidence  and  ad¬ 
miration  of  mankind. 

Mr.  President,  this  question  arises  now,  Which  is  paramount, 
the  obligation  of  a  platform  promise  or  the  obligation  of  a 
treaty?  Surely  this  question  is  not  open  to  controversy.  Under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  the  Constitution  itself  and 
the  laws  and  treaties  made  in  pursuance  thereof  are  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  This  treaty  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  Kind. 
The  Baltimore  platform,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  is  not  in  every 
particular  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  No  one  can  hesitate 
as  to  the  path  of  duty  when  a  platform  comes  into  collision  with 
a  treaty  obligation. 

Let  me  digress  for  one  moment  at  this  juncture.  I  have  been 
much  amused  at  the  bombastic  bravado  manifested  by  certain 
Senators  when  engaged  in  the  luxurious  pastime  of  baiting  the 
British  lion.  I  shall  do  no  more  than  allude  to  that  splendid 
and  entertaining  pantomime,  but  I  remember  that  Tam  O’Shan- 
ter’s  wife  had  to  nurse  her  wrath  to  keep  it  warm.  I  think  that 
these  irate  Senators  must  have  placed  their  hereditary  wrath 
in  cold  storage  this  century  past  in  order  that  it  might  flame 
out  into  incandescent  fury  on  this  occasion.  I  remember  that 
the  heroism  of  Sir  John  Falstaff  was  in  direct  proportion  to  the 
square  of  the  distance  between  himself  and  his  embattled 
enemies. 

Mr.  President,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  for  so  saying,  I  am 
Irish  in  lineage,  I  am  Irish  in  sympathy,  and,  sir,  if  you  please, 
I  am  Irish  in  my  antipathies.  I  hope  to  see  the  hopes  of  Ire¬ 
land  gratified  in  the  realization  of  home  rule.  While  I  may 
have  no  right  to  express  such  an  opinion,  the  greatest  disaster 
that  could  befall  Ireland  would  be  the  fall  of  the  present  Brit¬ 
ish  ministry. 

Mr.  President,  reverting  to  the  obligations  of  our  treaty,  the 
United  States  can  not  afford  to  sacrifice  the  high  and  justified 
reputation  it  has  always  borne  for  faithful,  for  scrupulous  ob¬ 
servance  of  each  and  every  such  obligation.  One  Senator  took 
occasion  the  other  day  to  defend  the  United  States  against  the 
tupposed  imputation  that  they  had  not  been  faithful  to  their 
treaty  pledges.  Sir,  the  United  States  needs  no  such  defense. 
Their  record  and  their  reputation  are  not  only  above  challenge, 
they  are  above  suspicion.  We  can  not  afford  to  sacrifice  our 
48513—13545 


■ 


15 

fair  fame  for  fair  dealing  by  the  repudiation  of  a  solemn,  rati¬ 
fied  obligation. 

Mr.  President,  good  faith  is  to  a  nation  what  honor  is  to  a 
man  and  what  chastity  is  to  a  woman.  It  is  the  one  virtue 
without  which  all  other  virtues  are  unavailing. 

Mr.  President,  during  the  course  of  this  discussion  it  has 
been  said,  regretfully  by  some  and  rejoicefully,  if  I  may  so 
say,  by  others,  that  the  pending  bill  is  the  rock  upon  which 
the  Democracy  must  split.  While  I  am  no  mariner,  I  antici¬ 
pate  no  such  disaster.  Senators  who  feel  bound  by  the  plat¬ 
form  and  oppose  the  pending  measure  have  ample  justification, 
and  they  will  receive  no  criticism  at  the  hands  of  their  asso¬ 
ciates  here  or  at  the  hands  of  their  constituencies  at  home. 
Senators  who  feel  bound  by  treaty  obligations  to  disregard 
the  Baltimore  platform  have  a  justification  that  will  exempt 
them  from  criticism  by  their  Democratic  colleagues  here  and 
their  constituencies  at  home. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  said  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  reversed  his  views  touching  the  remission  of 
tolls.  He  has  been  impeached  for  inconsistency.  It  sometimes 
requires  more  courage  to  be  right  than  to  be  consistent.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  present  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  Re¬ 
public  would  rather  be  right  than  be  consistent. 

The  President  is  not  one  to  change  his  matured  convictions 
for  light  and  transient  causes.  When  he  recanted  his  former 
utterances  and  renounced  liis  former  views  we  must  assume 
that  he  was  impelled  by  reasons  not  only  of  the  most  patriotic 
but  of  the  most  overpowering  character.  Under  our  Con¬ 
stitution  he  is  peculiarly  charged  with  the  direction  of  our 
international  relations.  He  possesses  information  upon  the 
subject  more  intimate  than  that  to  which  any  Senator  can 
pretend.  For  my  part,  when  I  receive  such  solemn  assurances 
at  his  hands  as  were  contained  in  his  message  in  relation  to 
the  pending  bill  I  am  disposed  to  follow  his  leadership. 

Mr.  President,  the  present  Democratic  administration  is 
dedicated  to  the  rights  of  man.  I  may  say  it  is  consecrated  to 
the  rights  of  man.  It  came  into  power  as  a  revolt  against  privi¬ 
lege  and  monopoly,  as  a  revolt  against  ancient  abuses.  The 
present  administration  came  into  power  pledged  to  a  revision 
of  the  tariff.  It  has  kept  the  faith.  The  present  administration 
came  into  power  pledged  to  a  revision  of  our  banking  and  cur¬ 
rency  system.  The  party  has  kept  the  faith.  It  came  into 
power  pledged  to  dismantle  existing  monopoly  and  to  eman¬ 
cipate  the  American  masses  from  the  thraldom  and  from  the 
tyranny  of  the  trusts.  The  party  will  keep  the  faith.  The 
Democracy  is  entitled  to  receive  and  so  long  as  it  is  entitled 
it  will  continue  not  merely  the  passing  plaudits  but  the  deep 
and  enduring  approbation  of  the  enlightened  citizenship  of 
this  Republic. 


The  Tariff. 

[Extract  from  speech  delivered  August  5,  1909.] 

For  my  own  part,  I  confess  I  am  ambitious  to  see  the  United 
States  become  the  leading  commercial,  industrial,  and  financial 
nation  of  the  world.  Our  natural  resources  entitle  us  to  that 
primacy.  It  is  only  our  shortsighted  policy  in  restriction  and 
48513—13545 


16 

prohibitions  of  trade  which  have  cheated  us  of  that  splendid 
destiny. 

I  am  not  among  those  who  think  that  it  would  be  better  for 
this  Republic,  instead  of  having  a  resourceful  country  to  our 
northward,  like  Canada,  to  have  a  frozen  and  fruitless  sea.  I 
am  not  among  those  who  thiuk  it  would  be  better,  instead  of 
having  a  rich  region  to  our  southward,  like  the  Republic  of 
Mexico,  if  we  had  a  burning  and  a  barren  desert. 

I  agree  with  President  McKinley  when  he  said  the  age  of 
trade  wars  had  passed  and  the  age  of  reciprocity  had  come. 
For  my  own  part  I  would  strike  the  shackles  from  the  feet  of 
the  United  States.  I  would  not  put  the  American  eagle  in  a 
cage  and  then  marvel  why  he  does  not  fly  to  all  the  markets 
of  the  world.  Primacy,  financially,  commercially,  and  indus¬ 
trially  is  the  goal  and  destiny  which  for  my  part  I  would 
set  before  the  eyes  of  younger  America  and  the  younger  Amer¬ 
icans. 

48513—13545 


o 


